[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [Issue 533] New - implement reserved checkouts

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_newton.ch.collab.net>
Date: 2002-08-02 20:01:04 CEST

"Bill Tutt" <rassilon@lyra.org> writes:
> If it's not pointless then they can branch it. :)


What I'm getting at is:

> > If they're both aware that they're doing it, but they keep doing it

That is, if there is an advisory lock, telling them that they're both
modifying the same file, and they persist, they must be persisting for
reason. And those who don't have a reason to persist can just make a
branch at that point.

All I'm saying is, no reason to have two kinds of locks here. One
kind of lock is fine, and it's okay for it to be stealable
(overrideable, whatever you want to call it). Because if someone
overrides, then they chose that course consciously.

Maybe I'm confused about terminology? I thought:

   - "advisory lock": a lock that can be overridden or stolen.

   - "firm lock": only the locker, or an admin, can undo this.

And I'm advocating that we have only advisory locks.

But maybe there is a richer tradition in locking schemes, that I'm not
aware of? It would be good if someone could describe that, if so...


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 2 20:16:09 2002

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.